A balanced measure of conservation outcomes: tracking woody vegetation loss and protection in Queensland, Australia

Abstract Quantifying changes in loss of native vegetation cover relative to its coverage in protected areas (PAs) offers a valuable means of evaluating conservation performance, yet this approach is rarely applied in practice. Here, we assessed historic and recent remnant woody vegetation loss and protection across Queensland, Australia’s most biodiverse state. By comparing the proportion of remnant woody vegetation loss with the extent of formally PAs across 13 bioregions and 116 subregions, we generate a balanced evaluation of conservation progress and apply a risk classification framework. We found that Queensland has lost 21.4% of its original woody vegetation since European colonisation, with only 9.6% currently protected. Importantly, one-fifth of this loss occurred between 2000 and 2018, despite protection more than doubling during the same period. Our results show that protection gains were concentrated in low-risk regions, while areas with considerable historical loss, such as the Brigalow Belt and Mulga Lands, continued to experience clearing and low protection gains. By 2018, 44% of subregions fell into high or very high-risk categories, while only 15% were classified as not at risk. The risk status for most subregions remained unchanged, which suggests that limited conservation progress has been achieved in high-pressure landscapes. Our findings highlight the limitations of using protected area expansion alone as a metric of conservation progress. A balance-sheet approach tracking both protection and loss can provide a more robust framework for evaluating conservation outcomes. This type of balance-sheet framework can support more effective conservation planning, including restoration and stricter land-clearing controls. Our results offer practical insights for aligning national actions with global biodiversity targets, such as those outlined in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Environmental Research Letters
Published
2025-10-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ae1623
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.02
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A balanced measure of conservation outcomes: tracking woody vegetation loss and protection in Queensland, Australia

James E. M. Watson, Michelle Ward, Hugh Philip Possingham, Lucía Morales‐Barquero et al.
3 citations
Environmental Research Letters
Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
5.02
article

A balanced measure of conservation outcomes: tracking woody vegetation loss and protection in Queensland, Australia

James E. M. Watson, Michelle Ward, Hugh Philip Possingham, Lucía Morales‐Barquero, Rubén Venegas‐Li, Christopher Ryan Sherriff
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Abstract Quantifying changes in loss of native vegetation cover relative to its coverage in protected areas (PAs) offers a valuable means of evaluating conservation performance, yet this approach is rarely applied in practice. Here, we assessed historic and recent remnant woody vegetation loss and protection across Queensland, Australia’s most biodiverse state. By comparing the proportion of remnant woody vegetation loss with the extent of formally PAs across 13 bioregions and 116 subregions, we generate a balanced evaluation of conservation progress and apply a risk classification framework. We found that Queensland has lost 21.4% of its original woody vegetation since European colonisation, with only 9.6% currently protected. Importantly, one-fifth of this loss occurred between 2000 and 2018, despite protection more than doubling during the same period. Our results show that protection gains were concentrated in low-risk regions, while areas with considerable historical loss, such as the Brigalow Belt and Mulga Lands, continued to experience clearing and low protection gains. By 2018, 44% of subregions fell into high or very high-risk categories, while only 15% were classified as not at risk. The risk status for most subregions remained unchanged, which suggests that limited conservation progress has been achieved in high-pressure landscapes. Our findings highlight the limitations of using protected area expansion alone as a metric of conservation progress. A balance-sheet approach tracking both protection and loss can provide a more robust framework for evaluating conservation outcomes. This type of balance-sheet framework can support more effective conservation planning, including restoration and stricter land-clearing controls. Our results offer practical insights for aligning national actions with global biodiversity targets, such as those outlined in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Environmental Research LettersVol. 20(11)
Griffith University (AU), The University of Queensland (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
5.02
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.